Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology

Niantic Spatial

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose redirecting to Pokémon Go because coverage of Niantic Spatial is not independent of that company, and because most coverage of Niantic Spatial only talks about them insofar as they relate to Pokémon Go. WikipediholicRat (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Games, Companies, and Technology. WikipediholicRat (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

oppose- this is a perfectly fine content fork. They also don't develop Pokemon Go anymore, and I think it's reasonable to assume that merging them to Pokemon Go would become messier and messier as they develop independently of it. Yojo98 (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: this has been tagged as a potential NCORP failure since April, so this being a separate article may not be valid. I'm not as convinced Pokémon Go is the right target, though, given that Niantic Spatial is result of the sale of much of Niantic, Inc., to Scopely, and the immediate spinoff of the non-games portion–which means the connection between Pokémon Go (which stayed with Scopely) and Niantic Spatial is tangential at best, coverage notwithstanding. Perhaps a merge back to Niantic, Inc. would be logical or due (certainly moreso than Pokémon Go in this case), but I'm not giving a formal opinion on that. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
thank you for the context, WC! I think a merge and redirect to Niantic, Inc could be appropriate, although it could get a little confusing with tense and clarity. I would defer to how other such spinoff merges has been conducted in the past, and continue to oppose merging to Pokemon Go Yojo98 (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Artificial intelligence and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I oppose. If it redirects to any game it should be the one they actively develop, Ingress.

Niantic Spatial is its own company separate from Scopely and Pokemon Go. CollinstheClown (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose Pokémon Go is not related to Niantic Spatial. Niantic has essentially been absorbed into Scopely since last year. nianticlabs.com redirects to Scopely. Niantic Spatial is a spinoff from the Scopely purchase in which Niantic's IP and other services were kept. My issue with the Niantic Spatial article has been it's not notable to be a separate article in its current form. – The Grid (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Nicola Salmoria

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most notability is inherited from MAME as demonstrated in pre-2009 sources, not much coverage as an individual. Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Technology, and Italy. Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to MAME if the notability is inherited and not self-warrented.

Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to MAME, which appears to pass notability.Ldm1954 (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
Redirect as suggested, to MAME, and as reasonable in these circumstances. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

MATS University

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Science, Technology, and Chhattisgarh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:41, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Raipur#Private universities and deemed universities, where it's listed, as an ATD-R. Additional searches yielded one paywalled certificate-for-money controversy article....besides that, nothing else with SIGCOV to warrant standalone notability. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 06:48, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

MALINTENT

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge into Future Attribute Screening Technology, as the subject of this article primarily relates to that article and is discussed in greater detail there. 42-BRT (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Terrorism, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:50, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
Merge per nominator's rationale, uncontroversial. FaviFake (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge per nom. Keep in mind that Merges need not be exact synonyms. —Leaf.Sheap ⇖ /.°°.\ ⇗ (They•Them) 23:49, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge per nomination. Khalitate (talk) 08:57, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Alabama Council for Technology in Education

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A promotional article, with no references, and all available online sources are for the the promotion of fairs in different regional campus. Easily this can be a redirect to institutions like Faulkner State College which hosts the biggest regional fairs, but not a standalone article itself. Chiserc (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, United States of America, and Alabama. Chiserc (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Comment: this survived the first nomination in 2009, but that was 17 years ago and standards, especially for organizations, are tighter now. (No opinion on if this meets 2026 standards.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:25, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EmilyR34 (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Golf simulator

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This formal merge proposal was incorrectly opened on the article's talk page. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical Proposed article mergers process (PAM). I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.

Moved from Talk:Driving range § Merger of Golf simulator

– FaviFake (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge into Driving range

I propose merging Golf simulator, into this article. The simulator article doesn't have many references for the majority of it's content. Furthermore, it appears article is mostly referencing the modern simulator. It being a form of golf practice that seemed to emerge as an alternative from a driving range.

Any encyclopedic content that page has could be moved to a dedicated section in this page for the modern simulator. Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I also wanted to point out that

On 21 March 2026, it was proposed that this page be moved from Indoor golf to Golf simulator. The result of the discussion was moved.

has been moved to golf simulator, relevant content from that move should also be placed in its own section on the driving range article.Issac I Navarro (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge per nominator's rationale. It is indeed scarcely sourced. FaviFake (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Golf, and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:50, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. These are really different entities although they may be co-located sometimes. Tewapack (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The golf simulator, page has hardly any sources. The current pages reads more like a dictionary entry then an encyclopedic article. Per WP:NOTDICT. Also Wikipedia is WP:NOTGUIDE, the simulator article, currently appears to be more in that realm. Issac I Navarro (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep. The topic is distinct from driving range, and it qualifies for GNG. I don't see any good reason why it should be merged.

Shocksingularity (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Shocksingularity, The current page lacks many citations and is written more like a WP:NOTGUIDE on how the simulators are used rather then an encyclopedic entry. Much of the simulator article could be trimed; as it consists of unsourced descriptions of features, components, among many other non encyclopedic details.

Additionally, golf simulators are ultimately a form of golf practice. From the available sources I was able to find, driving ranges are a rather new form of golf practice; only dating to the 1920s. While, indoor golf hitting areas seemed to have emerged around this time, as an indoor alternative. Thus, the simulator screen was the next technological advancement.

That being said, the technology itself could be distinct, however, the current content on the page doesn't seem to justifies a standalone article. Any reliably sourced content on that page, (if any,) that has an encyclopedic merit, could be incorporated into a section that shows the different types of practice facilities and their counter parts.

As the other common golf practice facilities that are often found with driving ranges are: sand bunkers, putting greens, and chipping greens. Range simulators are the alternative to the driving range. Much like how portable putting greens, are to practice green. Issac I Navarro (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Paulius Stankevicius

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find significant independent reliable secondary coverage establishing WP:GNG/WP:NBIO; the article relies mainly on paid press releases, sponsored or branded content, interviews, company/profile pages, and passing mentions rather than substantive independent biographical coverage. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related AfD discussions. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I can't tell if this is the same subject as the first nomination from 2024 (I delsorted it at the time, but any memory of that iteration long since evaporated), but it doesn't seem like it on the surface (I could very well be wrong). There was still another article at this title deleted via PROD in 2021, but I don't know how, if at all, it relates to any later iterations. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
It appears to be the same subject as the previous 2024 AfD, given that that discussion referred to the same Forbes India Brand Connect piece, Interview with Paulius Stankevicius the CEO of Stankevicius MGM on advertising and public relations, which is also cited in the current version of the article. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Relating to the dead-end issue, I tried to scan for words that I could link, but there really are none. If anyone is more qualified in how to properly hyperlink to articles, and what the "rules" are for what to link to, I would appreciate some help with this article. For now tho, I say delete it. It's too much work for its worth, honestly. BlintyBoy (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete - Overtly WP:PROMO and non notable. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 13:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep – The subject appears to satisfy WP:GNG through coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources discussing his activities in finance, investment management, and financial technology. The relevant question is whether there is significant independent coverage beyond routine announcements, press releases, and self-published material, and the available sourcing suggests that such coverage exists.

The article may still require additional source cleanup and the removal of any promotional wording, but these are editorial issues that can be addressed through normal editing. Per WP:ATD, improvement is generally preferable to deletion where notability can be demonstrated through reliable independent coverage. I therefore support keeping the article and continuing to improve its sourcing and neutrality. ~2026-40516-66 (talk) 07:02, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ – The article appears to satisfy the General Notability Guideline through significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources over several years. The subject's activities in business, investor relations, and media have been covered by established publications rather than solely through routine announcements. The article also documents sustained coverage of multiple companies and ventures associated with the subject, as well as reporting on capital markets, commodities, and technology initiatives.

While the article may benefit from additional copyediting to improve neutrality and reduce reliance on primary or promotional language where present, these are issues of content quality rather than notability. Per WP:ATD, editorial concerns should generally be addressed through normal editing rather than deletion. If necessary, sections can be trimmed, reworded, or more carefully sourced, but the available independent coverage suggests the topic is notable enough to merit a standalone article.~2026-41534-76 (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this is the same editor as the prior temp account keep. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Streamlight

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposing to delete this article. In my WP:BEFORE search, all coverage has WP:AUD issues, with basically all hits on Google being product releases from specialist first-responder or hunting websites , , or WP:ROTM announcements about them securing contracts with local first responder agencies. Nothing approaching the significance required for WP:ORGCRIT Yojo98 (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Police, Technology, and Pennsylvania. Yojo98 (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Comment: this survived the first nomination in 2006 as a "no consensus", but even that reflected the lower standards of the era. (That nomination was in turn prompted by a post-deletion contesting of a PROD.) This was also briefly deleted again in 2007 as a G11, but that was reversed after the discovery of the prior AfD. None of this should be considered to be indicative of the current article or how it meets (or doesn't, as the case may be) the standards of 2026. (of which I have no opinion). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:21, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:14, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

weak keep Some coverage in this book , and in newspapers here and . Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for digging into this a bit, Oaktree!

I'd just comment that the book source is named "Beyond the Sales Process: 12 Proven Strategies for a Customer-Driven World" and seems to be a motivational sales book. I'm doubtful that would qualify as a WP:RS, but I'm curious what others think.

The newspaper sources seem fine, if a little light (especially the second one, which is a glorified product summary from Consumer Reports). I would hope that for a keep here, we would be able to find stronger sources, per

WP:ORGCRIT, which says "a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. As such, the guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article." Yojo98 (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
Comment a product review in Popular Mechanics , not a lot of text, but it's a critical review of the product. Still a weak keep I guess. Oaktree b (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:53, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Rapyd

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My title "2nd nomination" may be wrong considering the number of related AFDs named differently. As with the prior version of this article that was deleted, the sourcing is primarily WP:CORPTRIV rather than WP:CORPDEPTH. The article was moved from draft space to mainspace by an editor with a declared COI, in violation of WP:COI guidelines. The article was recently quite promotional and cleaned up, but what's remaining doesn't appear notable, and doesn't alleviate the concerns from the prior discussions. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Technology. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:07, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related AfD discussions. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete as spam. Yet another random company trying to publish their brochure on Wikipedia. We are not Crunchbase, nor LinkedIn, and we don't cover every fintech operation under the sun. MediaKyle (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Could you explain how this is spam and how this opion relates to the 14 references at Hewiki? gidonb (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

No need really. Once you've seen one, you've seen them all. This is their third attempt, please don't help them. ~~Note that the author of this version is a blocked sock.~~ MediaKyle (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The blocked sock that appears to be the creator here was actually the creator of the original attempt from 2021. The current version created this month by Word-Oh (talk · contribs)–the declared COI editor mentioned by the nominator, but not blocked or a sock as far as is known–was briefly G11 speedy deleted, but when that was reversed, the entire revision history of the 2021 article was brought back (presumably not intentionally) as well (and remember, the first nomination ended in deletion). (Word-Oh's status as the creator of the current version is still reflected in their contribution history, but not the article's revision history.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I got confused. The fact that the original creator was a sock certainly doesn't inspire confidence, though. MediaKyle (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapydscript from 2013 does appear to be about something else entirely (Rapyd, the company, was only founded in 2016), but this is in indeed the third, not the second, deletion nomination for an article on this company (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapyd (company) was the second). We certainly are at least approaching the point where it will be time to salt this and other similar titles if this, like the prior two nominations, ends in deletion again (I offer no comment on that). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:43, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep. I am the creator of the article. Thanks for all the engagement here. I should have put my draft through AfC instead of publishing it straight to mainspace. I will use talk-page edit requests going forward. I think many of the sources may meet WP:CORPDEPTH:

Reference 4: TechCrunch, “Rapyd raises $300M on a $2.5B valuation to boost its fintech-as-a-service API” (13 January 2021): A staff-written article containing significant editorial context. Covers Rapyd’s origins, business model, market, customers and competitors, not just a funding round.
Reference 12: Calcalist Tech, “We are restructuring Rapyd: fintech unicorn begins layoffs amid AI shift” (28 May 2026): Original reporting covering the restructuring, layoffs, employee effects, and Rapyd’s AI strategy.
Reference 14: The Jerusalem Post, “Why do businesspeople buy sports teams?” (17 June 2026): An independent analysis that uses Rapyd as a central case study.

With this in mind, I would like to point out some additional online sources that may meet WP:CORPDEPTH. These are reliable publications and articles that provide context and depth, rather than simply republishing company announcements.

Calcalist Tech, “Fintech unicorn Rapyd prepares to shake up the credit card market” (17 December 2024), an independently reported article covering Rapyd’s planned entry into Israel’s credit-card clearing market, the regulatory framework, incumbent competitors, market size, and the potential effect on competition.
The Times of Israel, “Rapyd becomes Israel’s most valuable private startup with $300m funding round” (3 August 2021), a staff-written article that goes into Rapyd’s business in depth and connects it to the wider Israeli financial technology boom.

Taken together, I think these sources provide significant independent secondary coverage. Thank you. Word-Oh (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Weeding through puff pieces and WP:CORPTRIV like funding rounds and acquisitions, I think this coverage is independent, reliable, and significant, and not routine: Haaretz. Globes, CTech, CTech (again), Israel Hayom. There's also FT analysis of their fundraising and valuation that goes beyond routine parroting. Five outlets is I think is sufficient for WP:ORGCRIT. Fences&Windows 14:07, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep as meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. My WP:THREE are in the article, the last one I have added myself. The nomination and sole delete vote are not well thought through. The delete vote is even emotional, WP:BEGGING. Companies become more important over the years or not. That is what we need to examine. So the fact that a company has been deleted before is of little relevance. The fact that Rapyd is now one of the top three high tech companies in Israel carries much more weight. gidonb (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:36, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep - definitely meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGCRIT, a ton of strong sources here. Jishara (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

1-2-3 blocks

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet GNG Uncle Bash007 (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete as a DICDEF. This should go to wiktionary. LightlySeared (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- I've read the new arguments and I remain very much unconvinced by the article. At best, it's a wp:draftify. For one, the only source cited is WP:SPS of questionable reliability, and I simply can't find any additional RS. Secondly, the argument that we have an article on parallels (which has similar sourcing problems, in my opinion) is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Lastly, the article should be titled in the singular. Which already exists as a soft redirect to wiktionary and has done so since 2008. Please ping me if additional reliable sources are found. LightlySeared (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
Speedy delete: as violates DICDEF. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 19:00, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
DICDEF is policy, but it isn't a criterion for speedy deletion. (It is, for instance, very possible to be a DICDEF, but still have too much context for A1 or too much content for A3.) No opinion beyond that. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:03, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

User:DesmondW Leave well alone, 1-2-3 blocks are as common in workshops as parallels for which there is an article, and more common than gauge blocks for which there is an article. Stop interfering.
Weak keep as a stub: it can have an entry on both Wiktionary and Wikipedia. For the latter, information such as how the blocks are designed/manufactured, practical applications, and how they contrast with other related tools can be encyclopedic, provided the article goes beyond a simple definition of the word and its lexical properties. As currently written it needs to be fleshed out and more sources added. Btyner (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep, it's perfectly okay to have an encyclopedia article on a workshop tool that describes its history, usage, sociology etc., and a dictionary article that describes what it is, and potentially the etymology of the word. These are different functions. At risk of an other-stuff argument, we already have a lot of good articles on workshop tools, and I see no reason why a decent article shouldn't be written on 1-2-3 blocks. The current article is a bit stubby, but it can improve. Elemimele (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 19:24, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep per Elemimele. I see no reason why this should be deleted considering it discusses the usage and manufacturing process - at least not per WP:DICDEF.

I would, however, support moving it to 1-2-3 block per WP:PLURAL. Shocksingularity (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Universally amongst machinists they are referred to in plural DesmondW (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Plane wave tube

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Totally unsourced. I have tried restoring the previous redirect and been reverted. If another redirect is appropriate, editors can feel free to suggest it. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 09:08, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Technology. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 09:08, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Based on a quick search I do not see sufficient notability. The claim by Kvng that the topic is notable does not appear to be supported by adequate sources. In any case, restoring an unsourced page is not a good way to build Wikipedia, per WP:BURDEN it was their responsibility to prove their claim. Citing WP:DEMOLISH to defend an article that has been unsourced for 17 years does not make sense to me. From this audio standard the page content is not that accurate, so I dont see the redirect or a merge as a great ATD. If there is a major WP:HEY rewrite then I might reconsider my vote.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep - Multiple reliable sources found in Books search: , , , , , . We prefer to improve rather than delete articles on notable topics. If no one immediately steps up to make the improvements, do we still delete? How long do we wait? WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~Kvng (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
@Kvng, per policy in WP:BURDEN, if you revert a PROD/Redirect it is up to you to repair the problem, particularly for an unsourced article. In addition, if nobody has repaired the problem in 17 years then IMHO the improvements must be made immediately. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
I've seen this editing pattern and heard this argument before. Maybe it will prevail this time, we'll see. I appreciate the desire to improve the encyclopedia that I assume is behind it, sweeping the cobwebs out of corners. I don't appreciate the confrontational approach as it is not conducive to the collaboration that I believe is fundamental to the success of Wikipedia. ~Kvng (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
What's confrontational? You made an action against a PROD. It's either no action or it will go to AfD. – The Grid (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
The confrontation is deleting the material and objecting to anyone restoring it per BURDEN. Less confrontational would be to fix the problem, alert an associated wikiproject or let it slide. ~Kvng (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not convinced by the WP:BURDEN argument; while I personally prefer those wanting to keep an article to improve it during an AfD, there is no requirement to do so. More discussion is required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:45, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep - per sources provided, it definitely meets notability Jishara (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:14, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment a clarification wrt Ritchie333's comment about WP:BURDEN and the history.

Bearian redirected the article on June 24th 2026 since it had been tagged as unreferenced since 2019.
Kvng reverted this on June 29th, but did not add any sources or talk page explanation.
Bearian proceeded to PROD it as unreferenced for 17 years after doing a WP:BEFORE that did not indicate SIGCOV (see PROD edit comments).
Mariamnei decided to act on the PROD by restoring the earlier redirect. on June 30th.
On July 3rd Kvng again removed the redirect, again without producing any sources or attempts on the talk page to reach concensus.
Then on July 6th Mariamnei decided to AfD the page.

I made the WP:BURDEN point in response to the AfD, since Kvng had twice restored an unsourced article. I also stated that if someone did a standard WP:HEY rescue I would reconsider my vote. At that stage a very experienced admin and two experienced NPP had indicated major issues with the page.

If Kvng edits the page, as is standard, and does a WP:HEY rescue then a reappraisal is appropriate. The revised page needs to respond to the criticism (to quote Bearian's argument in the PROD) Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources; only a handful of passing mentions on Google Books. Appears to be original research..

One of the sources that Kvng has argued provides SIGCOV (3) is a homework problem; 1-2, 4 and 6 are short mentions; 5 is better so might count towards WP:42. Per policy, 3 or more detailed descriptions are required for WP:42, and as yet I do not see them; I have seen nothing that convinces me that Bearian was wrong in his WP:BEFORE. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Redirect should be restored. Thanks for the pings. I rescue literally dozens of articles every month, month after month. After a Before Search, sometimes I will give up, after not seeing significant coverage, as in this case. Arguably, some random person could create a stub from such sourcing, and I hate to admit it, but I have done so a few times recently. However, this particular subject is a highly technical STEM topic, and in cases like this, sometimes it's just better to redirect. Call me weak, but don't call me lazy, and don't call me late for dinner. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
I reverted the redirect because the topic is not mentioned in Anechoic chamber. I'm OK with a merge if consensus says this is not an independently notable topic. But, there are typically objections to merging unsourced material. I still think the best outcome is to keep and then improve the article. ~Kvng (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
Kvng, the unsourced page being discussed describes a plane wave tube as an anechoic chamber and a tube, so to me the redirect makes complete sense. In terms of keep and then improve you have not provided any evidence, or made any edits to the page that prove the topic is notable. To quote from the policy, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material'. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles